GANSONS LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT CIR-1, MUMBAI

ITA 1246/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7293 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 04-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: PRADEEP KAPASI
• Keywords: Business income; Rule of consistency
• Section: 143(3); 28; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN(J.M) & SHRI J.SUDHAKA R REDDY(A.M) ITA NO.1246/MUM/10(A.Y.2006-07) GANSONS LIMITED, 157/158, AKBAR CAMP ROAD, SANDOZ BAUG, KOLSHET, THANE (W) 400 607 PAN:AAACG 1699Q (APPELLANT) VS. THE ACIT, CIR. 1, VARDANN MIDC, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE (W) 400 604 (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRADEEP KAPASI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K.NAYAK DATE OF HEARING : 4/10/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7/10/2011 ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, J.M, THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 19/11/2009 OF CIT(A)-2, THANE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 -07. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS FOLLOWS: (A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N CONFIRMING THE ACTIONS OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT; (I) THE RECEIPT OF RS.25,27,200/- BEING CHARGES REC EIVED FOR ALLOWING THE USE OF FIXTURES AND FITTINGS ALONGWITH THE LET OUT OFFICE PREMISES WAS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND (II) THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION U/S 24 OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,58,160/- BEING 30% OF THE SAID CHARGES. (B) YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE SAID CHARGES RE PRESENTED INCOME FROM PROPERTY AND WERE TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS REDUCED BY A DEDUCTION OF RS.7,58,160/ - IN ACCORDANCE ITA NO.1246/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 2 WITH SECTION 24 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS HAD BEEN CONSISTENTLY COMPUTED BY THE APPELLANT AND ASSESSED BY THE IT DE PARTMENT SINCE THE BEGINNING OF LEASE IN THE YEAR 1999. (C) YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT; (I) THAT THE RECEIPT OF RS.25,27,200/- BEING CHARGE S SO RECEIVED BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY A FTER REDUCING SUCH RECEIPT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,58,160/- ON ACCOU NT OF DEDUCTION U/S 24 OF THE ACT. (II) WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE INCOM E AGAINST CHARGES RECEIVED FOR PROVISION OF SUCH FACILITIES WHEN HELD CONSIDERED AS REPRESENTING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES THEN DEDUCTI ONS AND ALLOWANCES AS APPROPRIATE BE GRANTED WHILE COMPUTIN G THE INCOME UNDER THE SAID HEAD OF INCOME. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY. IT IS ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF PLANT AND MACHINERY FOR PHARMA, CH EMICAL, FOOD AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES. THE ASSESSEE OWNED A PREMISES AT 118/1 21, SWASTIK CHAMBERS, SION TROMBAY ROAD, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI 71(HEREIN AFTE R REFERRED AS THE PROPERTY). IT HAD LET OUT THE AFORESAID PREMISES T O STATE BANK OF INDIA (SBI) UNDER AN AGREEMENT TO LEASE DATED 1/3/1999. THE TO TAL CARPET AREA LEASED OUT WAS 2925 SQ.FT. THE MONTHLY RENT PAYABLE BY TH E LESSEE WAS RS. 70/- PER SQ.FT. PER MONTH FOR THE CARPET AREA LEASED. APART FROM THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE ALSO ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT DATED 1/3/9 9 WHEREBY SBI AGREED TO PAY A SUM OF RS. 60/- PER SQ. FT. TO THE ASSESSE E FOR THE FIXTURES, FITTINGS AND AMENITIES PROVIDED IN THE PROPERTY THAT WAS LE ASED TO SBI. UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SBI HAD TO PAY ALL TAXES, CESS, SOCIETY C HARGES, REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF EXTERIORS ETC. THE ASSESSEE DECLARE D THE RECEIPT FROM SBI ON ACCOUNT OF THE AFORESAID LETTING (RENT AS WELL AS S ERVICE CHARGES) UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS FOLLOWS: PARTICULARS AMOUNT 118-121, SWASTIK CHAMBERS, SION TROMBAY ROAD, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI 400 071 ANNUAL RENT AND SERVICE CHARGE RECEIVED LESS: I) MUNICIPAL TAXES RS. 54,75,600 RS. 6,25,000 ITA NO.1246/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 3 ANNUAL VALUE LESS: DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.24 A) SECTION 24(A) 30% OF ANNUAL VALUE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY RS. 48,50,600 RS. 14,55,180 RS. 33,95,420 3. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE COMPONENT OF LEASE RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY RS. 29,48,400/- AND THE SERVICE CHARGES RECEIVED FROM SBI FOR THE FIXTURES AND FITTINGS AND AMENITIES PR OVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 25,27,200/-. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE INCOME RE CEIVED IN THE FORM OF SERVICE CHARGES OF RS.25,27,200/- WAS TO BE ASSESSE D UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IF IT IS SO ASSESSED THEN THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT GET DEDUCTION OF 30% OF THE ANNUAL VALUE UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) ON THE SERVICE CHARGES OF RS. 2 5,27,200/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT EVEN T HOUGH THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER AGREEMENT IS CREDITED IN BOOKS AS SE RVICE CHARGES, IT WILL BE EVIDENT FROM THE AGREEMENT THAT NO SERVICES OR FACI LITY WHICH IS NOT RELATED WITH THE USE OF PREMISES WAS GIVEN. NO SERVICE LIK E HIRE OF MACHINERY, PLANT OR LIKE ITEMS NOT RELATED TO OFFICE USE IS INCLUDED AS SERVICE CHARGES. SO THE SERVICES OF ALLOWING USE OF FITTINGS AND FIXTURES E TC. ATTACHED TO THE PROPERTY OF OFFICE PREMISES LET OUT AND ARE PART OF OFFICE P REMISES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE AGREEMENTS THEY ARE RUNNING CONCURRENTLY AND INVOLVE ONE SINGLE TRANSACTION OF LETTING OUT HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH IS NOT DIVISIBLE. THE TRANSACTION IS PRIMARI LY OF LETTING OUT OF PROPERTY AND ALLOWING USE OF FIXTURES AND FITTINGS IS INCIDE NTAL TO LETTING OF PROPERTY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RENT AND THE SERVICE CHARGES ARE FOR USE OF OFFICE PREMISES AND USE FIXTURES & FITTINGS WHICH ARE ATTA CHED OR FIXED TO THE LET OUT PREMISES AND PART OF PREMISES. NO OTHER SERVICES N OT RELATED TO USE PREMISES WERE IN FACT RENDERED OR WAS ENVISAGED BY THE AGREE MENTS. ITA NO.1246/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 4 5. THE AO WAS HOWEVER OF THE VIEW THAT THE SUM OF R S. 25,27,200/- WAS SERVICE CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME HAS TO BE ASS ESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN THIS REGARD THE AO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SULTAN BRO THERS PVT. LTD. 51 ITR 353(SC), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT TO THE EXTENT AMO UNTS ARE RECEIVED BY OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR RENDERING OF SERVICES FRO M THE TENANT AS A COMPOSITE PAYMENT BOTH FOR RENT AND FOR RENDERING S ERVICES, THE RECEIPTS TO THE EXTENT THAT IT RELATES TO RENDERING SERVICES SH OULD BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ON APPEAL BY THE A SSESSEE THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHO SUBMITTED THAT IN REALITY NO SERVICES WERE REND ERED FOR WHICH A SUM OF RS. 25,27,200/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT W AS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT IT WAS ONLY AT THE INSTANCE OF THE TENANT SBI THAT TWO AGREEMENTS WERE MADE. IN THIS REGARD HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE AG REEMENT FOR PROVIDING SERVICES WHEREIN THE COMPENSATION IS PAID ONLY FOR FITTINGS AND FIXTURES AND AMENITIES EXISTING IN THE PROPERTY. HE RELIED ON T HE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SHAMBHU INVESTMENT,263 ITR 141 (SC), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT CHARGES PAID FOR AMENITIES AND PROVIDED IN THE PROPERTY WILL NOT MAKE THE INCOME FROM PROVIDING SU CH SERVICES AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THAT THE SAME WOULD BE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. HE FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT IN ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2005-06, 2004-05, 2003-04, 2002-03 AND 2001-02, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECL ARED THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM SBI UNDER BOTH THE AGREEMENTS AS INCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. IT WAS A LSO HIGHLIGHTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WERE MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) IN THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT ITA NO.1246/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 5 WAS ARGUED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY HIM ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF BATRA GULATI HOTELS VS. ITO (2010) 40 SOT 406 (MUM), WHEREIN THE PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED IN TH E MATTER OF ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN. TH E LD. D.R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. CLAUS E (2) OF THE AGREEMENT FOR PROVIDING THE AMENITIES IS AS FOLLOWS : 1.THE AGREEMENT DATED 1 ST MARCH 1999 SHALL CONTINUE DURING THE ENTIRE TENURE OF THE MONTHLY TENANCY OF THE BANK OF THE SAID PREMISES EXCEPT THAT THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE BY THE BANK SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS. 2 IN CONSIDERATION OF THE AFORESAID BANKS FINANCIAL LIABILITY TOWARDS ALL OUTGOINGS SUCH AS TAXES, CESS, SOCIETY CHARGES, RE PAIRS, MAINTENANCE OF EXTERIORS ETC. WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CAP OF RS.60 /- (RUPEES SIXTY ONLY). PER SQ.FT. BANKS LIABILITY WILL NOT INCREASE IN THE EVENT OUT GOINGS REGISTERING AN INCREASE FITTINGS, FIXTURES AND AMEN ITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE BY THE OWNERS OR TO THE SAID PR EMISES, AND WHICH ARE TO HE AVAILABLE TO THE BANK, THE BANK SHALL PAY TO THE OWNERS, COMPENSATION OF RS.60/- (RUPEES SIXTY ONLY) PER SQ. FT. PER MONTH FOR THE CARPET AREA TO BE MEASURED AS PER LEASE AGREE MENT DATED 1 ST MARCH, 1999 FOR PERIOD 8/3/1999 TO 7/3/2004 PROVIDE D ALWAYS THAT IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE B ANK ANY OF THE SAID FITTINGS, FIXTURES AND/OR AMENITIES FOR ANY GENUIN E REASON FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF MORE THAN 7 (SEVEN) DAYS, TH E BANK SHALL BE ENTITLED TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION BY 50 % FOR THE PERIOD SUCH FITTINGS, FIXTURES AND/OR AMENITIES HAVE NOT BEEN MADE AVAILABLE. THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE FOR THE BALANC E PERIOD OF THE AGREEMENT WILL BE NEGOTIATED, AFTER EACH BLOCK OF FIVE YEARS, HOWEVER THERE WILL BE CAP OF 25% ON THE INCREASE IN THE CO MPENSATION PAYABLE FOR EVERY BLOCK OF FIVE YEARS. A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID CLAUSE CLEARLY SHOWS THA T THE SUM OF RS.25,27,200/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FITTINGS , FIXTURES AND AMENITIES PROVIDED IN THE PREMISES LEASED. WHAT AR E THE AMENITIES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SET OUT IN THE AGREEMENT. B EFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED A LETTER FR OM SBI WHEREBY THEY HAVE ITA NO.1246/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 6 CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS NO FURNITURE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED ANY AMENITIES TO SBI. THE FIXTURES AND FITTINGS HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE PROPERTY. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.25,27,200/- AS SERVICE CHARGES FOR RENDERING ANY SERVICES. IT WAS THE CON SIDERATION RECEIVED FOR USE AND OCCUPATION OF THE PROPERTY BY SBI. THE PARTIES HAVE ENTERED INTO SEPARATE AGREEMENT FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THEM. THE ENTIRE RECEIPT FROM SBI IN OUR VIEW IS ONLY FOR ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPER TY. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BATRA GULATI HOTELS(SUPRA) HAS LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES: THE MAIN ISSUE WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN INSTANT APPEA L WAS WHETHER THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CHARGEAB LE TO TAX IN ITS HANDS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS HELD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAI NS OF BUSINESS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE BASIC PRINCIPLES IN TH E MATTER OF CHARGEABILITY OF RENTAL INCOME TO TAX UNDER THE HEA D 7NCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OR PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN VARIOUS DECISIONS WHICH ARE SUMMARIZED BELOW: A) HOUSE OWNING HOWEVER PROFITABLE, CANNOT BE A BUS INESS OR TRADE IN THE ACT AND WHERE INCOME IS DERIVED FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY BY THE EXERCISE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS PROPERLY SO-CALLED THE INCOME FALLS UNDER THE HEAD 7NCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY CHARGEABLE UND ER SECTION 22. B) IF THE INCOME FALLS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 22, IT HAS TO BE TAXED UNDER THAT SECTION ONLY AND CANNOT BE TAKEN TO SECTION 28 ON T HE GROUND THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO EXPLOIT PROPERTY AN D EARN INCOME OR BECAUSE THE INCOME WAS OBTAINED BY A TRADING CONCER N IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS. C) WHERE HOUSE PROPERTY IS GIVEN ON LEAVE OR LICENS E BASICALLY FOR EARNING INCOME THERE FROM, THE TRUE CHARACTER OF TH E INCOME DERIVED IS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY FALLING UNDER SECTION 22 AND THE SAID CHARACTER IS NOT CHANGED AND THE INCOME DOES NOT BE COME BUSINESS INCOME EVEN IF THE HIRING IS INCLUSIVE OF CERTAIN A DDITIONAL SERVICES SUCH AS CLEANING LIGHTING OR SANITATION WHICH ARE R ELATIVELY ITA NO.1246/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 7 INSIGNIFICANT AND ONLY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE AND OC CUPATION OF THE TERMS. D) IN CASES WHERE THE INCOME RECEIVED IS NOT FROM T HE BARE LETTING OF TENEMENTS OR FROM LETTING ACCOMPANIED BY INCIDENTAL SERVICES OR FACILITIES, BUT THE SUBJECT HIRED OUT IS A COMPLEX ONE AND THE INCOME OBTAINED IS NOT SO MUCH BECAUSE OF THE BARE LETTING OF TENEMENTS BUT BECAUSE THE FACILITIES AND SERVICES RENDERED THE OP ERATION INVOLVED IN SUCH LETTING OF THE PROPERTIES MAY BE OF THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OR TRADING OPERATIONS AND INCOME DERIVED MAY BE INCOME NOT FROM EXERCISE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS BUT INCOME FROM OPERATI ONS OF TRADING NATURE FALLING UNDER SECTION 28 E) IN CASES WHERE THE LETTING IS ONLY INCIDENTAL A ND SUBSERVIENT TO THE MAIN BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, INCOME DERIVED FROM LETTING WILL NOT BE THE INCOME FROM PROPERTY FALLING UNDER SECTION 22. F) IF ONLY FEW OF THE BUSINESS ASSETS ARE LET OUT T EMPORARILY WHILE THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING OUT HIS OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVIT IES, THEN IT IS A CASE OF EXPLOITING BUSINESS ASSETS OTHERWISE THAN EMPLOY ING THEM FOR HIS OWN USE FOR MAKING PROFIT OF THAT BUSINESS. HOWEVER , IF THE BUSINESS NEVER STARTED OR HAS STARTED BUT CEASED WITH NO INT ENTION TO BE RESUMED THE ASSETS ALSO CEASED TO BE BUSINESS ASSET S AND THE TRANSACTION WILL ONLY BE EXPLOITATION OF PROPERTY B Y AN OWNER THEREOF BUT NOT THE EXPLOITATION OF THE BUSINESS. [PARA 16] IN OUR VIEW THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES (POINT C ABOVE) I F APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT WOULD BE A CASE OF ONLY LETTING OU T OF THE PROPERTY BY AN OWNER AND THE RECEIPT ON SUCH LETTING HAS TO BE ASS ESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. WE ALSO FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT BASED ON THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED IN THE PAST CANNOT BE DISTURBED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONCRETE MATERIAL. WE, THEREFORE, H OLD THAT THE SUM OF RS. ITA NO.1246/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 8 25,27,200/- SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED CONSEQUENTIAL DEDUCT IONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 7 TH DAY OF OCT. 2011. SD/- SD/- ( J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED. 7 TH OCT..2011 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.RG BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM. ITA NO.1246/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 9 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 4/10/11 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 5/10/11 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER